Questions for the pub minister
Monday, March 29, 2010 
Blogging will be light today. Tomorrow I've got a meeting with pubs minister John Healey so I shall be spending most of the day preparing for that. Also at the meeting: Greg Knight MP (Conservative) and David Clelland MP (Labour).
On March 18 Healey announced a 12 point action plan to give practical support to community pubs up and down the country, backed by £4million in government funding. Needless to say, amendments to the smoking ban don't feature.
If there is a question - or some relevant fact - you would like me to put to the minister, please comment here.
Update: Anti-smoke ban MPs to meet Healey (Morning Advertiser)
Smokers' lobby group to meet pubs minister (The Publican)
Simon Clark
Thank you for all your comments - much appreciated and very useful. There has been an interesting development which I will tell you about when I get a moment. Watch this space.
Reader Comments (147)
My wife and I used to spend £400 per month in our local- It used to be a place where we'd talk and unwind after our 12 hour working days. We now spend £0 per month and have absolutely no quality time together at all. Is it fair that the 90% of those who voted in the ban ( who never or rarely use pubs) should have been allowed to vote on this issue. 45% of my locals regulars smoked and of those that did'nt, many would have voted to continue to permit their smoking friends admission to the pub. Every village and town in Enghland is now devoid of pubs. They should not become health farms. We are all human and will drink to be merry, others will order food when their body mass index is so obviously of concern to the NHS. I walk 4 miles a day to work and have to suffer diesel fumes courtesy of those to lazy to walk yet I would not dream of dictating to those drivers whos weakness is physical innactivity. We all have weaknesses and should tolerate each other. I'm not advocating forcing non smokers to ingest my fumes but beg that seperate rooms or even private clubs for smokers be made available where we can hang loose. My vote incidentally this election goes to UKIP who understand our plight.
Healey, as we all know, categorically will not (or is not permitted to?) accept that the smoking ban was the catalyst for the skyrocketing figures of pub closures, and I have no doubt that his meeting with you is purely window-dressing, so that he and his little team can claim to have “consulted” someone representing the “smoking community.”
So, as well as putting forward all the many and varied points made here – which I am sure you were planning to do anyway – I’d be inclined to insinuate that this meeting isn’t going to end and be forgotten as soon as you walk out of the door. Take plenty of notes, record his reactions to any points you make to him and let him know that you are doing so because the people who you are representing are clearly anxious to know how the meeting went and what might lie in future for them (i.e. he won’t be able to get away with lying later on about what was actually said and claiming that the “smokers’ representative” agreed fully with his proposals or anything like that). If you’ve got access to a secretary who takes shorthand verbatim, all the better - take her along.
If he objects to any of this and tries to indicate that the meeting must be kept confidential until some report or other is made public, ask him why this must be the case. Is he intending to lie? Is he intending to not report certain things? If this threatens the continuation of the meeting itself, then agree to the confidentiality, but indicate that any untrue statements made on his behalf in such a report will be highlighted loudly and publicly the moment the report is issued - because of course, you will have to hand all those pesky, right-after-the-event notes!
All done, of course, as smilingly and charmingly as only you know how, Simon!
Best of luck!
My family fought and suffered in the second world war so that they could continue to enjoy their freedoms, 3 are still alive and in their mid 80s and are smokers.
Why does the government see fit to force these elderly heros out onto the street and make an example out of them because they enjoy a cigarette.
What sort of government is it that forces the elderly the sick the vunerable and law abiding taxpayers to go outside to smoke.
I refuse to spend any money in public houses due to this smoking ban along with quite a few of my friends and family.
When are you going to allow smoking and non smoking pubs or pubs with adequate air filtration?
Q1 What effect is the smoking ban having on the available venues for new musicians and bands? If there is an adverse effect, what does he plan to do about it?
Q2 Why can't people who smoke set up private clubs where smoking is allowed, if the staff also smoke?
Q3 If the smoking ban were repealed today, what effect would that have and why?
----
It makes me sick to think that these politicians are allowed to smoke in their own bar while we can't.Why should we kow tow to the anti smoking people,who obviously never pollute the atmosphere with their cars.We need a revolution to finally put a stop to this nanny state.
Does the Minister believe the smoking ban has made
pubs more popular,less popular or made no difference.
Why did the 2005 Labour Manifesto state a proposal
it had no intention of keeping.
Does the Minister agree the ban has hit the poor,
the elderly,the widows,the widowers,others who live alone and the working class in paticular.
Would the Minister accept that traditional Labour Voters and supporters have been tthe hardest hit.
Can he explain the claim by senior members of the Labour Party that the ban was brought in due to popular demand,if so why were there so few pubs
before the ban cashing in on this popular restriction
If the ban is so popular there should be no problem exempting food free pubs and then let the people
decide which which they prefer,the Labour Party's
claim would soon be vindicated,if true.
Lastly if a worker is allowed to work 8-10 hours in a Ferrous foundry surrounded by billowing lethal
ferric fumes he cant have a smoke in the local inn which has no employees ,just the landlord.
The Iron Lung
I used to be a captain of a quiz team in two local pubs. both quizes have now stopped because of lack of response since the ban. It onl takes one smoker per team to lose interest. Both pubs are now likely to close. All the bar staff are smokers who now go outside for a ciggy break. Both pubs were non-food. Other local pubs have spent a good deal of money on outside smoking areas. Now there are rumours of smoking being banned outside in beer gardens which, may result in even these pubs being closed down if this should happen. Come on! nobody makes these sit in anywhere they don't not want to be. Get real government.
Hi Simon,
You'll no doubt raise:
1) Smoking rooms with ventilation, 2) challenge warped science of passive smoking, 3) particularly unfair on pensioners etc. Maybe start with a compromise - agree no-smoking restaurants should stay. Emphasise the 'zero tolerance' goal/mentality of ASH & EU quangos - whose jobs depend on it, of course. Frankly, tell 'em either make it illegal or if you take taxes accept ours and businesses right to free choice. "No taxation without representation." Wars have been fought on less.
Also - I think FOREST need to be doing a LOT more campaigning - I haven't seen many FOREST events in media lately. UKIP (who I will vote for) don't even mention their pro-smoking policies when they have a platform. Why don't the two of you get together and organise some publicity? Passive voters who smoke (can you passive vote?) may not even be aware of UKIP's policy. Reasonable non-smokers need to hear our view - those who agree with smoking rooms in pubs will help the fight. (As a musician I also wonder why you don't organise benefit gigs etc. Musicians income has gone through the floor due to the 1) smoking ban and 2) restrictive music licence laws - they'd be happy to do benefits for those two reasons alone. Joe Jackson (used to drink in my local here - The Lamb, WC1) is very vocal/active about all this - why not ask him? If not maybe I will...)
It's good to see smokers now represented by cross-party support in the Houses - let's see if Healey will listen to you. Good luck! You'll need it. The only catch is: if the "Pub Minister" does listen and bring back sanity/smoking to our pubs - which his lot took from us in the first place! - he'll be out of a job.
Rob Lash.
Make sure every MP gets a copy of the 2005 Manifesto
waved in his/her face when they hold their pre election porkie sessions
Manifestos available on Amazon Cost 1p (one penny)
For good measure take a remote controlled Farting
Machine ..Also on Amazon
Freedom by any means
Why couldnt the government have just set levels of air cleaning for pubs and allowed freedom of choice,so if the pub wanted or allowed smokers,keep the air clean policy,cleaner than the streets in most cases. This would have created employment not un employment.
As with everything else the mind boggles with this government,but im in spain where we do still have freedom of choice.!!!!
I don't smoke, but if this rule is really intended to protect staff, and non-smoking customers, then why not have dedicated smoking rooms in pubs, where only smokers need go. The rule is of course, simply aimed at stopping everybody smoking. Once again, our hectoring, interfering, nannying, government has ridden roughshod over a minority, and created much collateral damage. Our non-smoking rules are far more draconian than those elsewhere in the EU, a fact that this Euromaniac government hypocritically chooses to ignore.
1hr 39mins 13secs into the recording.
Eddie D, Freedom To Choose (Scotland)
http://www.spiderednews.com/GeorgeGalloway.htm?vid=2448065
Why were so many MPs persuaded to vote for a total ban.
Does financial incentive play a role or not ?
Parliamentary Health Group receives £168,000 per annum
from Astra Zeneca,Bristol_MyersSquib,GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer.Would the Minister aggree this funding
leaves the pro ban lobby open to some deep suspicion
Foul play is abroad I fear.
Why did his party promise a partial-ban, complete with IMPORTANT exemptions, then fail to whip its MPs into supporting a manifesto-promise they made to their constituents?
Is he proud that he and his komrades have overcome this trifling matter of democratic-legitimacy?
Utterly fed-up with Labour. Not only the most corrupt government in my lifetime, but also the most authoritarian.
I've decided to leave this country, having travelled to other European country's where the ban proved to be unpopular with both customers and the industry, their governments gave them an alternative, our government need to listen rather than dictate to us and destroy democracy.
Good Riddence to them.
Whilst we have a client state manipulated by whichever government is in power there will be no democracy.
Labours vote consists almost entirely of the public sector and the benefit vote.
It is what Labour intended to do from the start.
However I feel Inquisitor may be on the money here sorry about the pun.
I have a feeling Healey will stick his fingers in his ears and go la la la .
The anti smoking lobby have really deeply infiltrated this government.
Sad
Just a thought, it's not only pubs that have been severely affected, I used to go to the bingo, those that haven't closed are struggling to survive. We no longer stay in hotels or go to the golf club and tell the minister that cruise ships who implemented the ban are suffering and it's all due to the total, uncompromising ban devastating the wider industry
Its claimed the ban was put into place to protect bar staff from second hand smoke.
If second hand smoke is killing people in their thousands as is claimed, how come no one is addicted to it?
Surely if you die from second hand smoke you would have to be addicted to it for a while.
Where are all the reports of bar staff experiencing withdrawal symptoms since the smoking ban?
Why does the government listen to ASH?
I saw a BBC news interview between Simon (I think) and some woman from ASH. In it she stated that ASH believed that 2 out 3 smokers want the price of cigarettes to go up!
Either ASH is telling lies OR they earnestly believe this, which means they are delusional idiots.
No ASH are not delusional or idiots.
They are in it for the money.
The health lobby is funded by the government,(see lobbying).
The Pharma companies fund the likes of ASH and the government,(see lobbying).
The whole system is rotten to the core.
who gave who the right to stub out and ban our liberty and impose bulling abuse persecution and murder yes murder on innocent people dont aske him tell him someone will be held accountable liberty and movements reinstated this is an afront on our forfathers and all thay gave for all this treason in memory of anthony mcdermott who was bullied in to suicide by his work mates and hanged himself and all others no liberty no peace your liberty needs you from liberty2protect
Perhaps one might suggest that if an exemption were given to bars under 100 square meters, small pubs on the point of closure might be given a reprieve and, perhaps, a rash of small bars might open, thus killing several birds with stone - reduce unemployment, re-activate dead town centres, alleviate the suffering of smokers, reduce fag-end litter, increase VAT income, increase small business lending, increase business rates income, increase profits tax, etc.
Please ask the minister why he doesn't, to put this issue to bed once and for all, have a 12 month trial somewhere (akin to the cannabis smoking amnesty they had in Brixton prior to reclassifying it as Class B) where bars can choose if they allow smoking or not. If spending increases and pub closures slow down then voila! Question solved. If there is no change then they can comfortably claim with some authority that the smoking ban isn't to blame.
If they refuse this trial, ask them what they are scared of finding out?
Also, please do not just lead on the "civil liberties" line - you're dealing with people who at best have a disregard for freedom and at worst an outright contempt for it. Please bone up on the science, the fisking of the junk science and the obvious and deep links the likes of ASH have with Big Pharma. Get reading your "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist" tonight!
Good luck!
One final line that may be pursuing - why are we, as a member of the EU, so out of step with our European neighbours? Allowing small bars to decide and forcing big bars to have separate non-smoking areas is not only fair but it brings us in line with the EU.
And how much does the Ban cost in tourism - just look at Nevada and Hawaii to see how their tourist trade has dropped off a cliff since their bans came in.
Simon please can you make a point when talking to John Healey, that the smoking ban was amended for the G20 last year and their are smoking rooms in the House of Commons for M.P.s good luck.
We've stopped going to our local, the only pub within almost 2 miles in a rural area, the next one is 4 miles with no buses and a dangerous road to walk along. All but 3 of the locals are smokers. We've all stopped going. It is tearing the heart out of a very small village. No-one hears any news of their neighbours any more.
In Spain you can smoke in bars, in Portugal, in certain bars in Denmark etc. It is the owner's choice. Same EU law, different, more sensible interpretation. Zurich airport in Switzerland and many other airports have smoking rooms that are a delight to sit in and wait for your flight with your coffee/beer, so decent ventilation is available.
The money we save because we are no longer spending it in our local businesses in our own country is now being spent on holidays abroad, including to the US, where many states still allow smoking. How many pounds are now being spent abroad rather than in the UK because of the ban?
We only book hotels where smoking is still allowed, so just how many businesses are suffering? What surveys have been done, particularly in rural areas, about financial difficulties faced because of the ban? It's not just pubs, by a long chalk.It must be threatening thousands of other businesses too.
An NHS Information centre report compiled after the UK smoking ban's introduction; confirms that one third of smokers about four million people have stopped visiting pubs altogether.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23750503-nhs-ban-made-no-difference-to-the-number-of-smokers.do
It is not reasonable to expect pub customers to stand outside in all weather to smoke. To avoid this millions of people that would have gone out,now drink at home instead.
My question as a customer would be:-
Why can the UK and Ireland's laws on smoking, not be brought into line with all of the other EU states, which are allowed to provide the choice of indoor smoking and non smoking areas?
The three main parties not proposing reform of the smoking ban, are giving away millions of votes to UKIP and the BNP.
The smoking ban in Ireland had been in place for well over a year when the England Total Ban vote took place (14th Feb 2006), and reports of the plight of Irish pubs spiking when the ban started were well known.
So MPs >>knew full well<< that it had caused horrendous damage to the Hospitality Industry (Hotels, Clubs, Bingo Halls, Tourism and all associated support industries), and that a UK ban would probably destroy 75,000 to 100,000 jobs, with an associated decline of actual smoking no higher sharper than pre-ban percentages.
In the 'free vote', 85% (source: Hansard) of Labour MPs supported the TOTAL ban instead of compromise which could have avoided all these lost jobs.
Question: WHY has the Labour party DELIBERATELY sold out our National Heritage, the traditional recreation of their grass roots voters, and *dozens of thousands* of working class workers???
I appreciate that not everybody wants to be in a "smoky" pub but a lot of Landlords would prefer to be able to choose themselves. Why is there a complete ban? I'm sure we can have seperate smoking and non smoking areas indoors.
I suppose the Government could just make smoking illegal everyway and ban all tobacco products.Where would all the extra revenue raised by tax come from then.
it would appear they want the best of both worlds and smokers are being victimised
I have never had a chest infection until the smoking ban was introduced. I now suffer constantly due to being exposed to the elements outside the pub in hail rain and snow.
I wonder how many more of us suffer like this bcause of the ban.?
Oh and I am a customer BTW. In Spain you get to choose. Green sign on the door= smoking allowed= Red sign= no smoking. So you decide to go in to the pub you choose, 'simples'.Why cant we have this here?
i am a non smoker but i don't mind anyone smokeing near me they need somewhere inside to smoke and where the penioners can have social interaction and not feel lonely and where people notice if there don't come in and go to see if they is something amiss and can help them if needed
What a CRACKING thread this one has turned out to be.
I don't believe I've seen such a concentrated expression of Noble Anger on this site before.
Bravo to everyone concerned !
Jilly P -
You suggest (pertinently):
"Please could you ask where all the non-smokers are? You know, the ones who were going to flood back to the pubs when the ban came in?"
Perhaps the Smell of Beer puts them off ?
And I've NEVER understood the 'flooding BACK' principle, either:
'Back' from WHERE, exactly ?
Inns and Tobacco have been partners for over 450 years now.
Are humans capable of such longevity (even if they don't smoke) ?
In Biblical Times, perhaps.................
Just another fact I forgot to mention. The European Parliament in Brussels re introduced smoking in their Parliament after only six weeks.They said the ban was- wait for this!!!'UN ENFORCABLE'. Not much on the newspapers about this.Now where are ASH when you need them?
add another couple of people to the ever growing list of people who enjoy freedom of choice, we rarely go into a pub in the uk and now go abroad.
The all encompassing Labour govt doesent like to offend any ethnic minority... only their own indiginous citizens.
Muslim law rules OK in the UK!
We went to Calais last week - in the Place d'Armes we sat outside a small brasserie which had the most marvellous smoking space - the sides, top and front were closed in except for 6" gaps between the top and sides, and about 8 gaps along the 18 ft. front. Plenty of room for the smoke to disperse. There was an ashtray on each of about 12 tables, and the outside had more people than the interior! No wonder the French have a better and happier quality of life than we do. People are not continually being stopped from enjoying their lives!
I agree with Martin V: "What a cracking thread this has turned out to be"...
After so many months of stiffled debate I feel such a sense of relief sitting here reading all these wonderful comments projecting such commonsense ideas in support of amending this awful law.
It's so comforting to realise just how many people feel the same as me. I feel I am no longer just a "lone voice crying in the wilderness."
I also want to wish Simon good luck today and thank him for all his hard work - let's hope he can 'burst the bubble'.
Kind regards...
Pensioner Ellie
I agree entirely with all the comments listed including smoking allowed in Spain, correct they just pay lip service to EU legislation, also Germany has bars for smoking and no smoking. We don't go out anymore. The government again has divided and conquered by segregating smokers and no smokers. We don't meet. United we stand divided we are conquered. It is only through a site like this we can find out what is going on.....
If you do get the chance Simon, please ask, why those who forced this unwanted ban are NOT paying out compensation to those who have lost their livelihoods, homes, jobs, business that has been caused by this vindictive ban.
Social isolation is not healthy as we know, what the government have done to encourage it (moreso to the elderly) is unforgivable and unbelievably cruel.
No-one was ever banned from going smoke-free, the CHOICE was ALWAYS there.
A choice that has been denied to smokers and their non-smoking friends, publicans, bingo halls, workingmen’s clubs ect.
Many years ago I used to belong to a club in London that still kept the old tradition of the people going out of the dining area to smoke in the members room.
That might sound a bit quaint now but it worked. Non smokers could enjoy a smoke free room and smokers could enjoy a smoking room. Why on earth can that old custom be adapted now ie. let the publicans decide if they want a non smoking or smoking pub. The customers can then decide which pub they want to use.
I am a smoker and a musician and have found that pubs can no longer attract enough customers by having a live band and therefore the ban has not only restricted my pub outings it has also restricted my earning potential so now I no longer have spare cash to spend on consumer items and help kick start the ecconomy.
As Ollie used to say
" thats another fine mess you got me into Stanley"
Indeed - that's why the law was so unnecessary. Many private companies decided to go non-smoking years ago, which is why cinemas, theatres, supermarkets, shopping centres etc etc were mainly non-smoking. In addition, I hadn't been into a restaurant that allowed smoking since the mid 90s. The usual scenario was as descrived above - have a meal in the restaurant and head to the bar section for a smoke. Annoying but not enough to ruin a night out and most smokers recognised that "fair was fair." Besides, pubs were the only public space where smoking was generally allowed, but being fair-minded people most smokers (some 25% of the population, remember)deemed that that was acceptable - especially since more pubs were becoming non-smoking anyway - we just chose to not go in those pubs.
Indeed, the only places were smoking was allowed were most (but not all) pubs and most (but not all) cafes. One can only presume that as these people liked making profits they still allowed smoking as that is what the market demanded. (A conclusion that is further enforced by the distortion of the market caused by the Ban resulting in 10% of the industry to disappear in 2 and a half years).
I have no objection to bans if that is what the owners of private businesses want - for example, when all cinemas went non-smoking (as that is what their management decided) I didn't see years of whining and discontent, as we see now. But FORCING Bans on businesses that will ultimately bankrupt them, whilst simultaneously denying the market to satisfy consumer nees is just wrong.... and costly, too. The fact that those pubs last year who defied the ban by "conducting scientific research" showed a 500% increase in takings in ONE WEEK (!!) and the fact that even after all this time this issue is just not going away, prove that something must be done. Fair, just compromise is the only way, and is what should have been considered before the Pharma-funded extremists at ASH got their way.
Similarly, how any Western, capitalist society can deem it as "a good thing" that an entrepreneur can't set up a "smoking bar", staffed by smoking bar staff by threat of legal sanction is beyond me. If the market is there it will thrive. If it isn't, it will lose all its money and be bankrupted. But that is (or at least was) the way of the free market in democratic societies.
Regardless of the legal arguments about "private property rights", regardless of the arguments about "liberty and freedom", regardless of the arguments about social marginalisation and division caused by the ban (all of which are, of course, very important points), it seems farcical in an age when the economy is on its kness to deny 15, 000, 000 from pumping money into the economy when they are clamouring, again and again, to do so.
it seems to me terribly wrong that pubs , which have always represented a full cross section of the local community are now having to exclude a large minority and further more punish them by making them stand outside in what has been the worst winter in over 30 years. It would be very simple to accomodate smokers by having a smoking room with decent ventilation.The enforcement of this legislation along with other government policies is hastening the end of the local pub, a place where all could go and be welcome. If you wonder why it is that young people go binge drinking in town centre pubs look no further than the dmise of the local where they could learn resposible consumption under supervision.Ministers need to review this punitive law and realise that by punishing a minority you destroy a centre for the local community. Tolerance and inclusion are not the signs of weakness that politicians believe but the basis of British society.
it seems to me terribly wrong that pubs , which have always represented a full cross section of the local community are now having to exclude a large minority and further more punish them by making them stand outside in what has been the worst winter in over 30 years. It would be very simple to accomodate smokers by having a smoking room with decent ventilation.The enforcement of this legislation along with other government policies is hastening the end of the local pub, a place where all could go and be welcome. If you wonder why it is that young people go binge drinking in town centre pubs look no further than the dmise of the local where they could learn resposible consumption under supervision.Ministers need to review this punitive law and realise that by punishing a minority you destroy a centre for the local community. Tolerance and inclusion are not the signs of weakness that politicians believe but the basis of British society.
"exclude a large minority and further more punish them by making them stand outside in what has been the worst winter in over 30 years"
We were supposed to be so miserable and isolated that we would decide to give up smoking, just to be accepted back in society again.
I think they were trying to be subtle.
Prepare to be ostracised, all you smokers of England
"The organisation Ash hopes that four million people, or almost 40 per cent of smokers, will stop because of the ban."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1913299.ece
"The report said: “It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective it should have been clearly stated.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article672477.ece